|
Mark, I wasn't trying to say that Jane Fonda
was more or less evil than RMN, just that the era of her notoriety was as far back in the distant past as Nixon's. Maybe if Nixon had come out with some exercise videos he would have remained a target for left-wing bashers.By the way, while Fonda did apologize, Nixon never did. Mark S. Holden wrote: Larry Ozarow wrote: Nixon has been dead since 1994, and while he did some stupid things, he was never photographed at an anti aircraft gun with a bunch of friends who happened to be trying to kill members of our military, and he never held a press conference to say the folks we were fighting were a swell bunch of guys. When our POW's came back and said they'd been mistreated, she called them liars. Ultimately, in 1988 she apologized, but many people had already made up their minds. |
"David" wrote in message ... ''Classical liberalism'' is an oxymoron. It's hard ot respond to this since I'm not sure if you don't know what an oxymoron is or don't know what liberalism is in the classic sense. Al Franken is a New Yorker. This comment alone should give you pause the next time you're tempted to state anything as fact. Today's ''liberals'' are truer to their heritage than the nutjobs running around today falsely claiming to be ''conservatives''. See above. On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:07:51 -0500, "T. Early" wrote: "David" wrote in message .. . I said ''Liberal'' The word has been turned into a put-down by the neofascists. Mr. Franken intends to reclaim it. He uses it himself without hesitation. Nice try, Franken-phile. Hollywood Al isn't reclaiming anything--he is your standard left-wing, one-note, Bush-bashing -modern day- liberal who has no clue what classical "liberalism" used to be about. He may use the term "without hesitation," but, like most things he says without hesitation, he's wrong. The word has been turned into a put-down very justifiably because so many of today's liberals are so clueless about the heritage of their alleged political philosophy, as they are about the history of pretty much everything. |
"Larry Ozarow" wrote in message ... I think Fonda's wartime activities became an issue when the revisionist view of the Vietnam war began to gain ground during Reagan's administration. The breaking point for alot of people was the list of top 100 women of the century which included Jane Fonda.. I can't prove it, but I think all the money Jane Fonda throws at all sorts of Liberal/Progressive causes keeps her at the top of several "enemies lists". I'm sure she would still be widely disliked without her activism and fundraising, but her activism and fundraising energizes her opponents. And, to my ear anyway, alot of political talk show talking points sound like they come straight from pressure groups and one or the other political parties. And while it's true perhaps that Nixon was a non-factor politically as you say, this is not to his credit. If anything it emphasizes the peculiar nature of the right-wing obsession with Hanoi Jane. Ironically, the Nixon administration could have prosecuted Jane Fonda for treason. Frank Dresser |
= = = "T. Early" wrote in message
= = = ... "RHF" wrote in message m... FW, "a female interviewer was talking to Ralph Nadar and trying to get him to admit he'd thrown the election to Bush in 2000," ONE MORE DEMOCRAT LIE: Ralph Nader was NOT the difference (Numerically) in any state between Bush and Gore when you subtract out Pat Buchanan. [ The Negatives (RN) balanced out the Pluses (PB). ] However, Pat Buchanan DID 'make' the "Difference Numerically" in three states. [ To put them in the Gore (Won) Column and the Bush (Lost) Box. ] Just the Facts ~ RHF Sorry RHF--Nader got about 97,000 votes in Florida, Buchanan about 17,000. Gotta be fair. TE, I was not talking about Florida Bush = 2,912,790 Gore = 2,912,253 DELTA = 537 Buchanan = 17,484 Had Pat Buchanan not been in the 2000 Presidential Election Florida would have went for BUSH - Big Time ! http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/2000presge.htm I was talking about these four states where Pat Buchanan did in-fact cost GW Bush "The WIN" in those States: * IOWA = Seven (7) Electoral Votes Gore = 638,517 Bush = 634,373 DELTA = 4,144 Buchanan = 5,731 Had Pat Buchanan not been in the 2000 Presidential Election IOWA would have went for BUSH. * NEW MEXICO = Five (5) Electoral Votes Gore = 286,783 Bush = 286,417 DELTA = 366 Buchanan = 1,392 Had Pat Buchanan not been in the 2000 Presidential Election New Mexico would have went for BUSH. * OREGON = Seven (7) Electoral Votes Gore = 720,342 Bush = 713,577 DELTA = 6,765 Buchanan = 7,063 Had Pat Buchanan not been in the 2000 Presidential Election Oregon would have went for BUSH. * WISCONSIN = Eleven (11) Electoral Votes Gore = 1,242,987 Bush = 1,237,279 DELTA = 5,708 Buchanan 11,471 Had Pat Buchanan not been in the 2000 Presidential Election Oregon would have went for BUSH. A "Total" of Thirty (30) Electoral Votes for GW Bush :o) jtf ~ RHF .. |
"RHF" wrote in message om... = = = "T. Early" wrote in message = = = ... "RHF" wrote in message m... FW, "a female interviewer was talking to Ralph Nadar and trying to get him to admit he'd thrown the election to Bush in 2000," ONE MORE DEMOCRAT LIE: Ralph Nader was NOT the difference (Numerically) in any state between Bush and Gore when you subtract out Pat Buchanan. [ The Negatives (RN) balanced out the Pluses (PB). ] However, Pat Buchanan DID 'make' the "Difference Numerically" in three states. [ To put them in the Gore (Won) Column and the Bush (Lost) Box. ] Just the Facts ~ RHF Sorry RHF--Nader got about 97,000 votes in Florida, Buchanan about 17,000. Gotta be fair. TE, I was not talking about Florida Bush = 2,912,790 Gore = 2,912,253 DELTA = 537 Buchanan = 17,484 Had Pat Buchanan not been in the 2000 Presidential Election Florida would have went for BUSH - Big Time ! http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/2000presge.htm OK, then I don't understand what you mean by this I guess: "Ralph Nadir was NOT the difference (Numerically) in any state between Bush and Gore when you subtract out Pat Buchanan." When you take Buchanan out of the mix (or even give his votes to Bush) Nader was the difference in Florida and New Hampshire. If you assume most Nader votes go to Gore, Gore wins Florida and New Hampshire. |
T. Early wrote: OK, then I don't understand what you mean by this I guess: "Ralph Nadir was NOT the difference (Numerically) in any state between Bush and Gore when you subtract out Pat Buchanan." When you take Buchanan out of the mix (or even give his votes to Bush) Nader was the difference in Florida and New Hampshire. If you assume most Nader votes go to Gore, Gore wins Florida and New Hampshire. There was also some evidence or at least a reasonable argument that some of the Buchanan vote in Florida was intended for Gore, but got diverted by a messy ballot layout. |
AirAmerica Radio will also be on Sirius Satellite radio beginning April
19. -- Larry Weil Lake Wobegone, NH |
In article ,
Larry Weil wrote: AirAmerica Radio will also be on Sirius Satellite radio beginning April 19. That's it. I'm signing up! Leonard -- "Everything that rises must converge" --Flannery O'Connor |
"Leonard Martin" wrote in message ... In article , Larry Weil wrote: AirAmerica Radio will also be on Sirius Satellite radio beginning April 19. That's it. I'm signing up! Absolutely. Imagine the collected wisdom of the ages as interpreted by the country's best and brightest broadcast on a single channel. I'm surprised Sirius feels they need all of those flakey music channels when they have Franken and Garafalo. Who cares about tunes when you can listen to loons? |
"T. Early" wrote in message ... "Leonard Martin" wrote in message ... In article , Larry Weil wrote: AirAmerica Radio will also be on Sirius Satellite radio beginning April 19. That's it. I'm signing up! Absolutely. Imagine the collected wisdom of the ages as interpreted by the country's best and brightest broadcast on a single channel. I'm surprised Sirius feels they need all of those flakey music channels when they have Franken and Garafalo. Who cares about tunes when you can listen to loons? You're on a roll today.. but let's not forget.. the loons are not kept strictly on the left wing.. :) |
"Leonard Martin" wrote in message ... These guys twist everything, endlessly dishing out innuendo and meanness for their partisan listeners. I don't think a liberal version of this will work because liberals are generally better-educated and can see through bull**** better, and lots of us hate it so much that we dont even like it when it's on our side! I was going to make an ill-advised, knee-jerk response to this, but I realize that you do have a point. If you really think about it, there's plenty of evidence to support your premise, and the world is certainly a better place for having all of those highly-educated liberals out there scanning the universe for bull****. After all, where would we be without all of those liberals who didn't defend Clinton until their last breath, or who predicted the bloodbath that Ho Chi Minh would bring about, or who labeled Stalin a mass murderer, or who realized that we could bring down the Soviet Union with defense spending, or who helped elect Jimmy Carter, or whose idea of art is religious icons dunked in urine, or ..... Well, I gotta give it you, Leonard, you've helped me see the light. |
|
|
|
|
"backscatter" wrote in message ... There is some truth about conservatives having less education. My area is about 75% conservative while the number of college educated adults is much less than 50%. Most of the latter are teachers. The others with a college education usually leave the area because it doesn't have much to offer them. This may not be the case in other areas of the country but it's not unusual either. I don't know if this is true, but let's restate the idea a little. Let's say liberals are more likely to live in the theoretical world and conservatives are more likely to live in the practical world. Practical in the sense of hands on, working with tools, etc. For every theory, a counter theory can be assembled using different assumptions. Of course, many theories can be tossed out on logical grounds, but many will stand fast until confirmed or disproved by actual facts. In the theoretical world, very little is really settled. But in the practical world, poor assumptions are often disproven immediately. If something doesn't work, it doesn't work. Every one who works with making things or fixing things knows full well that 90% of new ideas are crud. Ideas proven by the test of time are highly valued. Frank Dresser |
Michael Bryant schrieb: I also have the result... Tell this lowlife being 'N8KDV' to take a bath. Nothing else. |
|
Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV You did lie about having the PhD did you not? Repeating for the slow-reading N8KDV: I thought I had it, as I had completed all the requirements. A technicality and the departure of one of the professors sitting on my dissertation committee kept me from being conferred a PhD. I have explained this before. And I really have completed the coursework for two PhD's one in Rhetoric & Public Address and another one in Interpersonal Communication. I know all of that leaves me far behind your Business Admin degree from Grand Valley State. But you don't have the PhD do you? There was no deliberate lie on my part. There sure was! If the degree has not been conferred then you have no business claiming to be something you are not! Now, what was that last of employment, Steve? Why are you so afraid to tell us? Afraid of being caught? I'm not afraid of anything Fat Boy! Why? Because I haven't lied! I also have the result of your investigation back. Should I proceed? Proceed away Fat Boy! Proceed away! Just don't get into 'the land of actionable slander'! |
Michael Bryant wrote: From: Volker Tonn Michael Bryant schrieb: I also have the result... Tell this lowlife being 'N8KDV' to take a bath. Nothing else. We'll give Steve a chance to come clean on his own! Have a go at it Fat Boy! One thing for sure is it's nothing I've lied about here! Unlike the PhD you claim to have. LOL! |
Michael Bryant schrieb: We'll give Steve a chance to come clean on his own! For sure I will not touch 'this' to take 'this' to bath. |
N8KDV schrieb: Proceed away.... Take your words for yourself. Take a bath and beware of the whales. |
Volker Tonn wrote: Michael Bryant schrieb: We'll give Steve a chance to come clean on his own! For sure I will not touch 'this' to take 'this' to bath. It's really funny how much better your English is over in rec.radio.scanner! |
Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV You did lie about having the PhD did you not? Repeating for the slow-reading N8KDV: I thought I had it, as I had completed all the requirements. A technicality and the departure of one of the professors sitting on my dissertation committee kept me from being conferred a PhD. I have explained this before. And I really have completed the coursework for two PhD's one in Rhetoric & Public Address and another one in Interpersonal Communication. I know all of that leaves me far behind your Business Admin degree from Grand Valley State. There was no deliberate lie on my part. Now, what was that last of employment, Steve? My last day of employment? Why it was yesterday! I made a run down to Celina, Ohio. |
Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV You did lie about having the PhD did you not? I thought I had it, as I had completed all the requirements. Uh-Huh. A technicality and the departure of one of the professors sitting on my dissertation committee kept me from being conferred a PhD. Uh-huh. I have explained this before. Well, technically you've lied about it. And I really Really? have completed the coursework for two PhD's one in Rhetoric & Public Address and another one in Interpersonal Communication. Uh-huh. I know all of that leaves me far behind your Business Admin degree from Grand Valley State. Obviously, because I haven't lied about my degree! There was no deliberate lie on my part. Nah! You wouldn't lie or fabricate would you? Now, what was that last of employment, Steve? Why are you so afraid to tell us? Afraid of being caught? Caught at what? Lying about a nonexistent PhD? Why would I do that? I don't have one! I also have the result of your investigation back. Should I proceed? As I said post away! But better check with your 'lawyer relatives' first! One mistake and you're toast Fat Boy... toast! |
Frank Dresser wrote: I don't know if this is true, but let's restate the idea a little. Let's say liberals are more likely to live in the theoretical world and conservatives are more likely to live in the practical world. Practical in the sense of hands on, working with tools, etc. For every theory, a counter theory can be assembled using different assumptions. Of course, many theories can be tossed out on logical grounds, but many will stand fast until confirmed or disproved by actual facts. In the theoretical world, very little is really settled. But in the practical world, poor assumptions are often disproven immediately. If something doesn't work, it doesn't work. Every one who works with making things or fixing things knows full well that 90% of new ideas are crud. Ideas proven by the test of time are highly valued. Frank Dresser Frank, Is this a straw-man argument or are you actually saying conservatives are pragmatic rather than ideological? It certainly isn't true. How much real-world hands-on training have Condi Rice, Perle & Wolfowitz, and Dubya himself had? Was the Laffer curve based on empirical observation? There are leftists of the academy and rightists of the academy, and working leftists and working rightists. I don't think any of the generalizations that have cropped up in this thread can be said to apply all too accurately. Every argument of this kind, including yours, boils down to "hooray for our side" The liberal guys all say liberals are smarter and more cultured, and the rightist guys say conservatives are smarter, or in this case practical and realistic. There are smart people on both sides, and opinionated or non-thinking dummies on both sides, with no clear balance one way or the other. IMHO. Oz |
Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV You did lie about having the PhD did you not? Repeating for the slow-reading N8KDV: I thought I had it, as I had completed all the requirements. A technicality and the departure of one of the professors sitting on my dissertation committee kept me from being conferred a PhD. I have explained this before. And I really have completed the coursework for two PhD's one in Rhetoric & Public Address and another one in Interpersonal Communication. Actually you only qualify for one PhD, and that one is in Lying and Fabrication! I know all of that leaves me far behind ... Yes indeed Fat Boy, you are terribly far behind! Good luck catching up! |
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:35:17 -0400, N8KDV
wrote: Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV You did lie about having the PhD did you not? Repeating for the slow-reading N8KDV: I thought I had it, as I had completed all the requirements. A technicality and the departure of one of the professors sitting on my dissertation committee kept me from being conferred a PhD. I have explained this before. And I really have completed the coursework for two PhD's one in Rhetoric & Public Address and another one in Interpersonal Communication. Actually you only qualify for one PhD, and that one is in Lying and Fabrication! I know all of that leaves me far behind ... Yes indeed Fat Boy, you are terribly far behind! Good luck catching up! You're very hostile N8. Did your parents divorce early on in your childhood? |
B Banton wrote: On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:35:17 -0400, N8KDV wrote: Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV You did lie about having the PhD did you not? Repeating for the slow-reading N8KDV: I thought I had it, as I had completed all the requirements. A technicality and the departure of one of the professors sitting on my dissertation committee kept me from being conferred a PhD. I have explained this before. And I really have completed the coursework for two PhD's one in Rhetoric & Public Address and another one in Interpersonal Communication. Actually you only qualify for one PhD, and that one is in Lying and Fabrication! I know all of that leaves me far behind ... Yes indeed Fat Boy, you are terribly far behind! Good luck catching up! You're very hostile N8. Did your parents divorce early on in your childhood? No. Like Bryant, you are incorrect! It boggles the mind! |
N8KDV wrote: B Banton wrote: On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:35:17 -0400, N8KDV wrote: Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV You did lie about having the PhD did you not? Repeating for the slow-reading N8KDV: I thought I had it, as I had completed all the requirements. A technicality and the departure of one of the professors sitting on my dissertation committee kept me from being conferred a PhD. I have explained this before. And I really have completed the coursework for two PhD's one in Rhetoric & Public Address and another one in Interpersonal Communication. Actually you only qualify for one PhD, and that one is in Lying and Fabrication! I know all of that leaves me far behind ... Yes indeed Fat Boy, you are terribly far behind! Good luck catching up! You're very hostile N8. Did your parents divorce early on in your childhood? No. Like Bryant, you are incorrect! And, like Bryant, it must really suck to be wrong so often! It boggles the mind! |
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 21:50:33 -0400, N8KDV
wrote: N8KDV wrote: B Banton wrote: On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:35:17 -0400, N8KDV wrote: Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV You did lie about having the PhD did you not? Repeating for the slow-reading N8KDV: I thought I had it, as I had completed all the requirements. A technicality and the departure of one of the professors sitting on my dissertation committee kept me from being conferred a PhD. I have explained this before. And I really have completed the coursework for two PhD's one in Rhetoric & Public Address and another one in Interpersonal Communication. Actually you only qualify for one PhD, and that one is in Lying and Fabrication! I know all of that leaves me far behind ... Yes indeed Fat Boy, you are terribly far behind! Good luck catching up! You're very hostile N8. Did your parents divorce early on in your childhood? No. Like Bryant, you are incorrect! And, like Bryant, it must really suck to be wrong so often! It boggles the mind! But you can't prove they're not divorced. It boggles the mind. It really does. Really. |
"Telamon" wrote in message ... If you are a Commie we will find out! Then we will send Mikey over to bat you about the head with his fake PhD. You guys and your time-tested methods. You never change. You figure just cause it worked on Comrade Trotsky, it'll work every time. Frank Dresser |
B Banton wrote: On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 21:50:33 -0400, N8KDV wrote: N8KDV wrote: B Banton wrote: On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:35:17 -0400, N8KDV wrote: Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV You did lie about having the PhD did you not? Repeating for the slow-reading N8KDV: I thought I had it, as I had completed all the requirements. A technicality and the departure of one of the professors sitting on my dissertation committee kept me from being conferred a PhD. I have explained this before. And I really have completed the coursework for two PhD's one in Rhetoric & Public Address and another one in Interpersonal Communication. Actually you only qualify for one PhD, and that one is in Lying and Fabrication! I know all of that leaves me far behind ... Yes indeed Fat Boy, you are terribly far behind! Good luck catching up! You're very hostile N8. Did your parents divorce early on in your childhood? No. Like Bryant, you are incorrect! And, like Bryant, it must really suck to be wrong so often! It boggles the mind! But you can't prove they're not divorced. It boggles the mind. It really does. Really. But you intimated that perhaps they were! So the ball is in your court! |
N8KDV schrieb: ...That'll hurt even worse! The only thing that hurts is your offtopic struggling and fighting. Take a bath and beware of the whales. |
"Michael Bryant" wrote in message ... From: "Stinger" Very likely, many people listening to some of the more esoteric or fringe radio hosts (Gallagher, Reagan, etc.) would not necessarily be the same ones that read William Buckley or even George Will. Duh. That was hard to guess. Do you think 15% of conservatives (can) read Buckley or Will? Liberals do not have a monopoly on college graduates. But, you'd probably blast college teachers (more educated than just college) as being the vanguard of the commie invasion, right?Remember, you do exactly that later in your post! Additionally, I think an easy case could be made that elitist dumbasses such as yourself Aren't you the same guy that was lambasting liberals as namecallers because they lack intellect?! Did you have a lobotomy, yesterday? must rely on an ever-larger, uneducated (or lower-educated) mass of people to try to elect your socialist dream teams. So, do you really want to stick to the ASININE claim that liberals appeal more to the lower rungs of society than do conservatives? Now, that's boggling! With the help of their alliance with teachers unions, the Democratic agenda of late has been to create a populace as uneducated as possible, convinced that they must be reliant upon the government. Oh, I get it. Teachers are against education. They want ignorant students. That must be why Bush's Secretary of Education calls teachers terrorists. -- Stinger Stinger, I've generally respected your posts more than most of the so-called intellectual conservatives on this NG. But this last one was pure, unadulterated horse****. I'm sorry to see what a negative effect this NG is having on you. Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL Louisville, KY R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K, DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76 (remove "nojunk" to reply) Lately, I've been reading this twit's postings and watching him claim that all conservatives are poorly-educated, gullible rednecks. That condescending, elitist snobbery in ill-thought post after post disgusts me. He's not worthy of my respect. His moronic belief that all conservatives listen (and believe) every right-wing guy in front of a microphone is just plain stupid. His complete ignorance of demographics is astonishing, and his "we know what is best for you people" tone is contemptible. Actually, I very much support the idea of tenured professors in the (semi)-protected environment of academia. I do wish that they would keep some grip on the reality of the outside world by doing some activities outside academia, such as consulting. There is no teacher better than experience. However, my accusation against the teacher's unions in on-target and true. These organizations fight against testing teachers for ability, testing students for learned skills or achievement, and against rooting out which teachers are short-changing our children's education. Just as with any other union, their agenda is all about protecting jobs (for even the worst, as long as they have seniority) and getting more for themselves. The students' interests are not even in their equation. Look at the absolute horror that is being uncovered each and every day in the New Orleans municipal school system (in which the teachers unions have vigorously opposed any reforms). As far as making any "asinine" claim that Democrats have a lock on the uneducated, that was not what my post said. If you re-read both Leonard's and my post, you'll see that I was refuting his conjecture that the Democrats had all of the educated voters. My assertion is that they have at least as many of the uneducated, and also that Democratic politicians have learned to pander to them. -- Stinger |
In article ,
Volker Tonn wrote: N8KDV schrieb: ...That'll hurt even worse! The only thing that hurts is your offtopic struggling and fighting. Take a bath and beware of the whales. What's this bath and whale thing you got going? -- Telamon Ventura, California |
|
Telamon schrieb: What's this bath and whale thing you got going? N8KDV can not proof having a bath the last few years. And since he 'beached the whale' he should beware of them -they might be very angry on him- and not to swim too far out when taking a bath in his toilet... |
"Michael Bryant" wrote in message ... From: "Stinger" Lately, I've been reading this twit's postings and watching him claim that all conservatives are poorly-educated, gullible rednecks. That condescending, elitist snobbery in ill-thought post after post disgusts me. He's not worthy of my respect. I do not believe that all Republicans are poorly-educated gullible rednecks. To suggest that I have said that is clearly hyperbole. If that's what you're reading, Stinger, your own perception is skewing your interpretation. I do believe that you'll find far more poorly-educated gullible rednecks voting Republican than Democrat. That's not suggesting that I think the Republican party is solely reliant on that voting bloc. I should have been more clear... I was speaking to Leonard's remarks (not yours, Michael), which are included in my reply. Sorry for any misunderstanding! His moronic belief that all conservatives listen (and believe) every right-wing guy in front of a microphone is just plain stupid. His complete ignorance of demographics is astonishing, and his "we know what is best for you people" tone is contemptible. Wow. And Republicans don't preach "we know what is best for you people"? Abortion? Sex on TV? The imposition of democracy? Look in the mirror. What you hate about the "other" is what you ignore about yourself. You'll find many pro-choice conservatives, Michael. As for sex on TV (or "gasp" radio), you'll find that probably more of us think it's a problem, but an awful lot of us don't think it's worth trekking down the road to censorship. As for "the imposition of democracy," I'm unapologetically proud to be part of a group that would have that as an agenda. When will you socialists finally figure out that people instinctively yearn to be free? Actually, I very much support the idea of tenured professors in the (semi)-protected environment of academia. I do wish that they would keep some grip on the reality of the outside world by doing some activities outside academia, such as consulting. There is no teacher better than experience. Your point? Running a factory puts you more in touch with reality? Yeah. It also provides an interesting bias. So, I'm in the world of business, helping myself and others make a good living, and giving my employees a chance to better themselves, and that's a bias? The fact that you didn't even acknowledge your bias in academia speaks volumes here. We have to actually be productive and profitable to make money. However, my accusation against the teacher's unions in on-target and true. These organizations fight against testing teachers for ability, testing students for learned skills or achievement, and against rooting out which teachers are short-changing our children's education. Just as with any other union, their agenda is all about protecting jobs (for even the worst, as long as they have seniority) and getting more for themselves. The students' interests are not even in their equation. Look at the absolute horror that is being uncovered each and every day in the New Orleans municipal school system (in which the teachers unions have vigorously opposed any reforms). There are problems in inner-city schools. There are many ill-prepared teachers. But eliminating the few teachers that will volunteer to work in inner-city conditions is hardly going to resolve the situation. Disparities in district-to-district funding are resulting in teaching salaries in public schools that have simply driven most qualified teachers out of public education. I couldn't live on those salaries. Nor would I risk my life daily to teach in a situation where my life was literally threatened every single day. Driving the few remaining (and mainly minority) educators out of teaching with culturally-loaded certification tests is akin to only letting people into school if they happen to have a 120 IQ. So basically, you've found a politically-correct way of saying that we need to throw accountability away because these terrible teachers happen to be minorities, and their heart's in the right place. Bunk! A bad education is a LIFE SENTENCE to poverty. And "culturally-loaded" -- what a crock! We all have the same textbooks -- that's a lame excuse for failure. I'm willing to bet that you feel any unions are a threat to America. No unions in your plant, right? Unions had their place, and were a good thing years ago. However, they have long-since outlived their usefulness. I've worked at a union plant and a non-union plant in the same business. The workers at the non-union plant ran rings around the union plant in productivity -- and that produced more profit, which in turn, meant job security, raises, and bonuses for the workers. (And they didn't have to worry about some union thugs stealing from their retirement account, either!) They are in much better shape than their (in this case Teamster) union counterparts. As far as making any "asinine" claim that Democrats have a lock on the uneducated, that was not what my post said. If you re-read both Leonard's and my post, you'll see that I was refuting his conjecture that the Democrats had all of the educated voters. My assertion is that they have at least as many of the uneducated, and also that Democratic politicians have learned to pander to them. Yes, there are uneducated on many sides. I feel that you'll find more inner-city uneducated of all races on the side of the Democrats. I think you'll find far more rural uneducated southern whites voting Republican. Didn't you tell us that was how it was leaning down in Mississippi? I'm sorry you perceive this as so condescending, but try to not let your percetions provide all the color in your final interpretations. I think Republicans are legitimate humans, too. A little blinded by some very intelligent manipulators, but still basically good humans. I accept that you see it from a diametrically-opposed situations. The exact same paragraph can also be said for Democrats. Does that mean that you HAVE to sink to the despotic name-calling that you earlier were so opposed to? I didn't do anything but respond in kind to the tone of that post. As you well know, I would much rather take the high road. If so, I understand. Good! Now, we're getting somewhere, Michael! -- Stinger Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL Louisville, KY R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K, DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76 (remove "nojunk" to reply) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com